O.B. "Aiming Post"

[1dash1]

I ran into this on the TGC discussion board.

There is a relatively short hole that doglegs sharply to the right. A public road runs parallel with the hole along the right side of the fairway and makes a corresponding 90-degree turn at the corner. Although the road and everything right of the hole is O.B., the risk-reward tempts many a hacker to attempt to cut the corner. Their drives often fail to carry the distance, resulting in near misses with public traffic and pedestrians.

In an attempt to control the problem, the Committee installs an "aiming post" at the inside corner of the dogleg.

.................................................. ..................................
.................................................. ........................................
.................................................. .........................putting......
...........Fairway.......................................................green.......
.................................................. .....................................
.................................................. ..................................
.............................. __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
................. aiming .o . __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
....................post....| . | (public road)
..............................| . |
..............................| . |
..............................| . |
..............................| . |
..............................| . |
..............................| . |
..............................| . | . For illustrative purposes, the roadway is shown
..............................| . | . in red. However, roadway is really marked with
..............................| . | . white stakes and is designated out of bounds.
..............................| . |
...........Fairway.........| . |
..............................| . |
..............................| . |
..............................| . |
..............................| . |
..............................| . |
..............................| . |
..............................| . |
..............................| . |
..............................| . |
..............................| . |
..............................| . |
.............TEE............| . |
..............................| . |

By local rule, all shots which fly left of the "aiming post" are considered acceptable. All shots which fly right of the "aiming post" are deemed O.B., regardless of where the ball comes to rest.


Has anyone here ever run across a similar local rule?

[buckylasek]

What? this rule is just to prevent people from dying from a ball, but i think it's not acceptable since the problem came from the couse architect.

[el tigre]

Never heard of such a local rule - it is surely not acceptable according to the Rules of Golf and I would personally ignore it.

What I have seen in similar situation is telephone poles with netting. Perfectly legal and nobody will try to cut the corner with it there.

[Law]

what post?

[Samick]

I would agree with el tigre.....I never heard of a rule like that. If a player thinks he/she can carry the O.B. then they can do so if they think the risk is worth it.

Do they also have the rule that if your ball flies over a water hazard your ball is in the hazard? Weird.

[buckylasek]

Maybe they should put some practice nets to make it obvious.

[AAA]

This surely contravenes RB rules.
I would suggest that they put up a prominent notice pointing out the potential liabilty claims that could arise if someone(thing) was hit. It is the player's responsibilty for his actions. I think there enough legal cases around to put the frighteners on everyone.

[Sphere Hunter]

This surely contravenes RB rules.
I would suggest that they put up a prominent notice pointing out the potential liabilty claims that could arise if someone(thing) was hit. It is the player's responsibilty for his actions. I think there enough legal cases around to put the frighteners on everyone.

Yes, I agree. This, along with a simple net or hedge should be enough.

There is a very similar situation on the 7th hole at Pakenham (Canyon?), it is very dangerous. People still go for the green, myself included, but I wait for the green to clear. It's a long carry with a bail out to the left but the reward is sweet if you pull it off. The problem is, you are risking OTHER PEOPLES safety. That's not acceptable. Penalizing a player for the flight of his ball doesn't make sense. This is just an argument waiting to happen.
SH

[1dash1]

According to the original writer, Hartwell Country Club and Taylor Glenn Golf Course in Ohio both have such a local rule.

[Gary Hill]

This surely contravenes RB rules.

Exactly which rule would that be?

[el tigre]

Exactly which rule would that be?

It changes the definition of "out of bounds" - specifically the part that says "a ball is out of bounds when all of it lies out of bounds".

[Big Johnny69]

But if you cut the corner, temporarily your ball will be deemed out of bounds. Will it not? But is your ball not safely in play once it cuts the corner and clears it to land in the fwy or on the green?

[Samick]

Yes.....balls that end up over the O.B. is considered in play and safe. But in the original post, according to a local rule.....if your ball flies over the O.B. markers it is considered O.B. not matter where it lands or stops.

I guess temporarily you could consider your ball O.B. if it flies over the or outside the markers, if, you consider an invisible line from the O.B. stakes upwards into the sky indefinately.

There is a similar O.B. marking on a course I have played.....the 18th hole is a short par 5.....dogleg right. There are trees that line the fairway on the right...and on the other side is the number 1 fairway coming back towards the 18th tee box. In a tournament, junior amatuers were driving their ball over the trees on the right and into the #1 fairway to cut off a significant amount of yardage. In doing so, they were endangering the guys on the #1 fairway. BUT, if you can cut the dogleg over the trees crossing the O.B. and land in the fairway (#18), your safe.

[LobWedge]

There's a similar situation at Stonebridge (East #7), but the sign basically says "Please don't cut the corner out of respect for...etc."

This seems like a more reasonable solution.

[AAA]

Exactly which rule would that be?

Rule 33-8b.
Decision 33-8/38 specifically forbids it (if I have read it correctly).

[Kilroy]

Ridiculous local rule.
Great ASCII illustration

[BC MIST]

Number 3 Mississippi GC.

While it appears that there is no way of preventing golfers from cutting the corner, according to the rules, common sense says that playing over the trees would put the occupants of the property constantly in danger. If you had kids you would not want them to play where they are in the line of fire.

If there is no rule preventing such an action, then, the club could plant a tree. Perhaps, by law, the occupants could insist that the club build a fence or erect some netting, as a previous poster mentioned.

[el tigre]

But if you cut the corner, temporarily your ball will be deemed out of bounds. Will it not? But is your ball not safely in play once it cuts the corner and clears it to land in the fwy or on the green?

A ball is not "lying" out of bounds if it is still in motion.

[Chieflongtee]

This surely contravenes RB rules.
I would suggest that they put up a prominent notice pointing out the potential liabilty claims that could arise if someone(thing) was hit. It is the player's responsibilty for his actions. I think there enough legal cases around to put the frighteners on everyone.

Not really. You could be aiming left with the intention of going left but you could end up hitting that dreaded slice. IMO the net is the way to go.

[mpare]

If you think that you were getting the hang of this, try this on for size. It would appear that a local rule could be enacted that would deem the teed ball to be out of bounds if it ended up on that part of the fairway which lies to the right of the aiming marker. Support for this lies in Interpretation 27-20 (yes, Gary, I know you hate to rely on these Decisions, but they must publish them for more than our mere amusement). Here it is:

27/20 Public Road Defined as Out of Bounds Divides Course; Status of Ball Crossing Road

Q. A public road defined as out of bounds divides a course. A ball crosses the road and comes to rest on the part of the course on the other side of the road. Is the ball out of bounds?
A. No. Since the ball lies on the course, it is in bounds unless a Local Rule provides otherwise. However, because it is unfair that a ball on the road is out of bounds and a ball beyond it is in bounds, it is suggested that the following Local Rule should be adopted:
“A ball which crosses a public road defined as out of bounds and comes to rest beyond that road is out of bounds, even though it may lie on another part of the course.”

Boundary Stakes Having No Significance in Play of Hole Being Played — See 24/5.
Tee Decreed to Be in Bounds for Tee Shot and Out of Bounds Thereafter — See 33-2a/13.
Internal Out of Bounds Applying to Stroke from Teeing Ground Only — See 33-2a/14.
Establishing Boundary Line Inside Fence on Property Line — See 33-2a/15.
Deeming Ball in Bounds Until Beyond Boundary Wall — See 33-2a/16.
Boundary Altered by Unauthorized Removal of Boundary Stake — See 33-2a/19.
Displaced Boundary Stake — See 33-2a/20.

And, if that was not enough, here are a few more gems:

33-2a/12 Internal Boundary Between Holes

Q. It is proposed to install boundary stakes between two holes as a safety measure. It would prevent players playing a “dog-leg” hole from driving onto the fairway of another hole in order to cut the “dog-leg.” Is it permissible to establish such a boundary?
A. Yes. For the recommended status of such boundary stakes, see Decision 24/5.
33-2a/13 Tee Decreed to Be in Bounds for Tee Shot and Out of Bounds Thereafter

Q. A Committee has decreed that ground surrounding a certain teeing ground is in bounds for tee shots and out of bounds thereafter. Is this permissible?
A. No. In play of a particular hole, an area cannot be both in bounds and out of bounds.
33-2a/14 Internal Out of Bounds Applying to Stroke from Teeing Ground Only

A Committee may make a Local Rule under Rule 33-2a declaring part of an adjoining hole to be out of bounds when playing a particular hole, but it is not permissible for a Committee to make a Local Rule placing an area of the course out of bounds to a stroke played from the teeing ground only.

[1dash1]

I agree with the comments about screening the area.

However, the rule's author said that putting in any sort of netting, fencing, or landscaping was beyond the club's financial means.

[1dash1]

Mpare:

I hope you are not arguing that there is room to accept the "aiming post" local rule.

The subject local rule makes ball FLIGHT the criteria for deeming a ball out of bounds. This essentially changes the definition of "Out of Bounds", which has the same effect as waiving Rule 27-1. The Committee has no authority to waive a Rule of Golf.

The decisions you cited designate AREAS as out of bounds. That is completely within the Committee's authority to do so. The Committee marks water hazards, it marks ground under repair, and it most certainly marks O.B. boundaries.

However, even when designating areas, the Committee's powers are not unlimited. As explicitly stated in Decision 33-2a/13: "In play of a particular hole, an area cannot be both in bounds and out of bounds." That is further supported by the other decisions you cited. And it is another reason why the "aiming post" local rule is not acceptable, the same landing area is both in bounds and out of bounds, depending on how the ball flew.

[AAA]

Mpare
Decision 33-8/38 surely overrides all the others. It is specific to this case.

[1dash1]

AAA:

I think you meant Decision 33-8/38 (per message no. 15).

http://www.usga.org/playing/rules/bo...3.html#33-8/38

[AAA]

AAA:

I think you meant Decision 33-8/38 (per message no. 15).

http://www.usga.org/playing/rules/bo...3.html#33-8/38

Typo corrected. Thanks.

[Samick]

Mpare...your rule is right.....in the particular application described in that rule. I believe that the rule you brought forward is not to this application...and here is why I think that.....

The rule you quoted was for a road that seperates two holes.....ie; hole 18 and 1 run parrallel and have a road between them for access to a clubhouse (as in Cambridge Golf and Country Club) In your instance, the ball left #18 tee box and crossed the road landing in the #1 fairway...the O.B. stakes then would come into play as the tee shot being out of bounds........

In the original post, the golfer would hit his ball over the O.B. stakes and land in the fairway he intended to hit, the 18th which he was playing.

Interesting rule you noted though.....I may have to bring up a few matches in the past with a buddy of mine...I think he owes me a skin!

[Gary Hill]

Rule 33-8b.
Decision 33-8/38 specifically forbids it (if I have read it correctly).

Decision 33-8/38 "Local Rule Deeming Out of Bounds Ball Which Crosses Boundary But Comes to Rest on Course"

This decision has nothing to do with this thread.

[Sphere Hunter]

Decision 33-8/38 "Local Rule Deeming Out of Bounds Ball Which Crosses Boundary But Comes to Rest on Course"

This decision has nothing to do with this thread.

It sure appears to. Care to elaborate on why you think it does not? Is it because the original post had to do with a Local Rule?

[Gary Hill]

This thread has nothing to do with a ball crossing a boundary.

The Local Rule suggested in Decision 27/20 deals with a different situation, i.e., one in which a ball crosses an out of bounds area and comes to rest on a different part of the course.

Decision 27/20 states that a Local Rule deeming the ball out of bounds in such a case is a perfectly valid and acceptable Local Rule.

[AAA]

Are you sure that the road is not the boundary? It certainly looks like it. There is no suggestion that it is within the boundaries of the course.